www.theregister.com/2007/08/13/shuttle_replacement_deal_inked/

NASA inks deal for Shuttle replacements
Timing nothing to do with Endeavour dent

By Lewis Page
Published Monday 13th August 2007 16:33 GMT


NASA has signed a $1.8 billion contract with Utah-based Alliant Techsystems (ATK) for "design, development, testing, and evaluation of the first stage of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles." Ares I and V will replace the Space Shuttle fleet as NASA's primary means of getting people and stuff into earth orbit.

The deal, announced on Friday, includes delivery of five ground static test motors, two ground vibration test articles and four flight test stages. NASA doesn't get any boosters to use under this deal: the operational rockets will be subject to a seperate contract.

ATK was seen by NASA as the only company which could develop of the first stage of the Ares I crew launch vehicle. Ares I will use solid-fuel rockets to launch humans into orbit, and the current space shuttle strap-on booster is the only solid rocket made in America rated for firing people rather than just kit.

The first stage of the Ares I astronaut-carrying launcher will be a five-segment solid rocket booster based on the four-segment design used for the shuttle. The second stage will be a J-2X liquid-oxygen, liquid-hydrogen engine with a new upper stage fuel tank. The Orion crew exploration vehicle will ride to low Earth orbit with as many as six astronauts atop this stack.

The planned Ares V bulk lifter will deliver machinery and spaceships into orbit, including the vessels which will take people back to the Moon and on to Mars under current plans. Ares V's mighty first stage will mount five RS-68 liquid-oxygen, liquid-hydrogen engines mounted below a larger version of the shuttle's external tank, with two five-segment, solid-propellant rocket boosters strapped on for extra poke. The upper stage will use the same J-2X engine as the Ares I.

NASA says a return to throwaway rocket stacks will be more reliable, affordable and flexible than the Shuttles, whose orbiter spaceplane segment is re-usable but expensive to maintain and often plagued by technical and safety problems. Others have characterised the move as a retrograde step for launch technology, saying that NASA should move forward with some blue-sky, truly reusable scheme such as rocket/scramjet spaceplanes.


********************************************

More on the Constellation Program www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

Quoted: Quoted: I will be at the first Ares V launch. The first description I ever read was "Apollo on steroids" and my mind was made. It is to my eternal regret that I never saw a Saturn V launch live.   I've watched a pre-dawn shuttle launch 10 years ago and can still close my eyes and see and hear it. Caught one landing out at Edwards. I WILL see an Ares I AND V launch launch live.

I grew up in east Texas in the area that Columbia scattered over. One of the really cool things about growing up there was seeing the shuttle re-entering the atmosphere. Especially at night, it was amazing. Like you said before, I can still close my eyes and see the fiery streak sliding across the black sky. It was really something to see.

It is about freaking time. How many times do we have to hear the tiles are missing or loose, etc. before we realize the shuttles are not viable anymore!

ARES V is going to be one huge rocket. The plans haven't been finalized but it seems like they are settling on a 38' diameter set of tanks. I can't wait to get my hands on that job!

Quoted: Think of what Burt Rutan could do with that money.

FTL

Quoted: Quoted: Think of what Burt Rutan could do with that money. FTL

he would go faster than light?

how would he do that?

carbon fiber aircraft have limits you know!

Quoted: Others have characterised the move as a retrograde step for launch technology, saying that NASA should move forward with some blue-sky, truly reusable scheme such as rocket/scramjet spaceplanes. It is indeed a "retrograde step". It certainly doesn't represent the same kind of bold thinking, innovative technology - and yes, risk-taking - that got us to the moon.

I still remember the "Big Dumb Booster" plan that was proposed as a shuttle alternative.  Built, maintained and launched by guys in coveralls and hard-hats.

The DC-X should be flying right now, but that would make the .gov aware that NASA does not need so much money to do what they do.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Think of what Burt Rutan could do with that money. FTL he would go faster than light? how would he do that? carbon fiber aircraft have limits you know!

By blowing some things up and killing a few volunteers!

Anyway, according to Bill Lear we already know how to do that, along with anti-gravity.

SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind


Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets.
They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life."

Quoted: one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets". They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life."

Well, I sort of agree about the SRB's but with a zero-zero LES I think Orion crews will be a hell of lot safer than Shuttle crews.  No matter what the "plans" say, there's no really viable escape from the Shuttle as long as the SRB's are attached and running.

Remember Wally Schirra's "It's death, or the ejection seat" moment on Gemini 6A?  THAT was an Aviator with balls of stainless steel.

Quoted: SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets. They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life."

SpaceShip One used a throttleable, restartable solid-fuel motor.

Sorry, mis-read the info.

Quoted: SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets. They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life."

According to the post here yesterday, the new capsule has a improved version of the "zero/zero" abort system put into Apollo after the Apollo 1A launch pad fire.

That mast sticking out the front of every Saturn V/Apollo combo was not just a aerospike but had rockets on it and the crew/reentry capsule would detach and launch itself from the stack just like a giant ejector seat, pulled by those rockets.

Either someone on the ground or the pilot should be able to punch out at any point in the trip to orbit.

Quoted: SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets. They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life."

The technology has come a long way since the days of Von Braun.

Quoted: Think of what Burt Rutan could do with that money.

He could probably get to NASA-1967 by 2020.

Quoted: Quoted: SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets. They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life." SpaceShip One used a throttleable, restartable solid-fuel motor.

Yes, it uses rubber as fuel and nitrous oxide as oxident.  Its a kind of motor that Von Braun knew nothing about.  Its also not very strong, and it has to be dropped from a aircraft or perched atop a more powerful (and volitile) conventional stage to reach orbit.

And also one of them blew up and killed three people at Scaled Composites last week.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SOLID rockets??? thats one giant step backward for mankind Von Braun   had said that "no human should ever ride on solid rockets. They were just too dangerous. One in twenty-five blew up due to defects. They could not be stopped once lighted and thus had the potential for a major loss of life." SpaceShip One used a throttleable, restartable solid-fuel motor.   Yes, it uses rubber as fuel and nitrous oxide as oxident.  Its a kind of motor that Von Braun knew nothing about.  Its also not very strong, and it has to be dropped from a aircraft or perched atop a more powerful (and volitile) conventional stage to reach orbit. And also one of them blew up and killed three people at Scaled Composites last week.

Seems to be ahead of NASA in the body count department.  I'm sorry if I missed your point.

im sure ther'e are numerous safties in place with this vehicle but my spidy sense is still tingling.

Quoted: im sure ther'e are numerous safties in place with this vehicle but my spidy sense is still tingling. www.pyroinnovations.com/wickerchair_r.jpg

Personally, I think NASA has evoleved beyond the point where they should be involved with space exploration at all.  It's sole purpose has become furthering it's own existence and keeping the money coming. People who should not be picking up trash in the park will have a say in the design.  No offense meant to the many talented, knowledgeable and skill engineer types we have here.  You guys could do it, I just don't think NASA can any more.

Quoted: Think of what Burt Rutan could do with that money.

But Burt Rutan doesn't "play the insiders game"....

I hope these rockets turn out better than the last batch of XM855 I received from them.